At the time it was first proposed, Save The Rock Creek Park Deer opposed this program and took NPS to court, on the basis that we have seen no evidence of any threat to the park from the deer. Instead we believe the threat comes from the non-native and invasive plants that have taken over the park, as reported in many Rock Creek Park documents. The courts ruled that NPS had the legal authority to kill the deer (the courts did not evaluate the desirability of their action). And so, the yearly killings began in 2013 and have been going on ever since.

Advertisements

Now we have some very strong evidence that the basis for the annual kills is false and that the killing is not decreasing the population as expected.

The evidence against the justification given for the kill comes from the most recent report of the study NPS uses to justify the kills. This study, conducted by the US Geological Survey for NPS, evaluates the effect of the deer by comparing plots within the park where deer are fenced out to similar unfenced plots. The most recent update of the study (“Impacts of Deer Herbivory on Vegetation in Rock Creek Park, 2001-2014”) also uses a very direct measure of the potential of the park to renew itself based upon counts of tree seedlings. The study authors found that there is no significant difference between the fenced and matched unfenced plots in the stocking rate, a measure of ability to regenerate the forest. In other words, it made no difference whether the deer had access or not – they did not change the ability of the forest to regenerate.

It is clear that the authorities in the USGS found this to be a devastating result because they went to great lengths to keep the study secret in spite of the fact that it is a purely scientific report which should be released without question. First, in response to a December 2016 FOIA request, they sent documents which appeared to be various drafts and the final of the study. But the documents were totally redacted – only a few headings were left among totally black pages.

When Save the Rock Creek Park Deer protested, USGS gave reasons that were obviously not applicable to a strictly scientific study. In June 2017, Save the Rock Creek Park Deer finally sued USGS under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain the report.

In addition, a recent comparison of deer population before and after a kill found that the population had actually increased substantially. In the fall of 2016 the NPS estimated only about 19 deer per square mile in the main section of the park. But in the fall of 2017 the estimaters found there were 55 deer per square mile, about a three-fold increase.

This is population rebound, a common result of lethal methods of deer population control: The deer have twins and triplets rather than single fawns and in other ways increase the birth rate. It is not what NPS envisioned in its plan and likely means that many new fawns born in the spring because of a rebound will be shot down in the fall or orphaned when their mothers are killed. If population control is needed there are methods that avoid this rebound and are more humane and safer.

In September of 2018, Save the Rock Creek Park Deer wrote a letter to NPS outlining our arguments in some detail and asking NPS to immediately halt the killing and re-evaluate their policy. They have refused. We hope this petition, which already has more than 48,000 signatures, will help both directly and indirectly to change the minds of decision makers on this issue and provide a more rational, science based policy. Please help us by signing the petition.

Save the Rock Creek Park Deer was formed in 2012. Anne Barton manages the group’s website, savetherockcreekparkdeer.com, and Facebook page. She lives in Chevy Chase DC and is a retired biostatistican and EPA executive.

Forest Hills Connection is produced by volunteers, and supported by you. We appreciate your support – financial and otherwise. Here’s how to donate.

Comments

In the Washington Post Op-ed “Don’t kill the deer in Rock Creek Park”, by Jay Kirkpatrick PhD and Allen Rutberg PhD, 2/1/13, two preeminent wildlife scientists and experts in fertility control of wildlife populations wrote the following:

” Our analysis of the data convinces us that any such measures [killing] to reduce the deer population in this park would be premature and unnecessary. … To begin with, the Park Service’s own data do not show a deer population crisis. … But more to the point, the Park Service’s data show that Rock Creek’s deer population has remained stable for 10 years, and some densities in recent years are actually below those of earlier years. As the Park Service also acknowledges, the telltale sign of a serious deer overpopulation problem — a “browse line” indicating that deer have eaten most of the vegetation within their reach — has not been detected in the park. The deer themselves are in good condition. They are not starving.

The National Park Service (NPS) has ignored the analysis of these leading independent experts, including Dr. Oswald Schmitz of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, who concluded that “there is NO evidence presented that the deer are impairing the forest regeneration in Rock Creek Park”, and said that the real problem was the non-native species that have invaded the park and not been controlled.

So the glaring question that is begging to be asked, is WHY did the NPS ignore all of the leading independent experts and move forward with an unnecessary, ineffective, and inhumane deer killing program, that puts all of the residents in the adjacent neighborhoods at lethal risk?

The rifle typically used in these deer killing programs is the .223 caliber bolt-action rifle with 55-grain bullets (some vendors use the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle). The maximum range of the .223/55-grain ammunition is 2.20 miles. So if there is a misfire, missed shot, or ricochet anyone within a 2.20 mile radius is in lethal danger. There are densely populated neighborhoods adjacent to RCP, and this unnecessary shooting of high powered rifles poses a serious safety threat to families, pets, and motorists. It’s a accident waiting to happen.

While it may seem counter intuitive, killing deer actually triggers an increase in deer reproduction and population. This phenomena is called compensatory reproduction (rebound) and is a well documented population dynamic in deer and other mammals. When the deer herd density is temporarily reduced through hunting, culling, or trapping, there is reduced competition for food, and the number of twins and triplets born actually increases. Studies have shown that after a hunt surviving females produced enough offspring to not only replace those killed, but enough to actually increase the size of the herd. This phenomenon explains why hunting as a management tool has resulted in an ever-increasing number of deer in this country. For example, a study conducted by the Dept of Wildlife and Range Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida sampled deer from five separate sites: three hunted and two nonhunted. The study found that the incidence of twins being born to a pregnant doe was higher on hunted land than on non hunted land. The study found the incidence of twinning was 38% on hunted sites and 14% on nonhunted sites. No twinning was observed among pregnant fawns or yearlings from nonhunted areas, whereas…18% of the pregnant yearlings and…33% of the pregnant fawns from hunted areas carried twins.” (Reproductive Dynamics Among Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida”, Journal of Wildlife Management [1985]).

Laura Simon, The Humane Society of the United States’s (HSUS) wildlife biologist writes: “One of the main problems with trying to manage deer through any kind of hunting or culling – as repeatedly cited during a Smithsonian Institute conference on Deer Overabundance (McShea et. al 1997) – is that deer are highly prolific, and their high reproductive rate can quickly compensate for declines in their population. They exhibit higher productivity (i.e. more twins and triplets are born, have higher survival rates, etc.) as their numbers lessen and more food becomes available for the remaining deer. In other words, they ‘bounce back’. … We do not see any evidence that hunting or culling works over the long-term or is an answer for suburban deer conflicts.”

Killing deer is not a solution to a problem, but a commitment to a permanent problem.

The National Park Service hired the USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as their deer killing contractor. Both Wildlife Services and NPS claim that the “culls” are conducted by “professional sharpshooters”.

USDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES FIREARM SAFETY REVIEW

(This review was done a few years ago.)

Below are key findings from the National Security Academy Firearm Safety Review of the APHIS Wildlife Services. This review was sought by the USDA out of concern for safety issues. I’m posting a summary of this review, because it’s the review I requested and received a copy of and reviewed a few years ago. I’m assuming that there have been more recent safety reviews for those who want to investigate further. This safety review found that APHIS Wildlife Services:

1. Had no uniform method of safely transporting firearms.
2. Used an unsafe practice of transporting rounds in the magazine, but not in the chamber.
3. 85% of employees interviewed were deficient in firearm safety and handling training, including lack of live fire training.
4. Only 2% of all employees who use firearms were drug tested.
5. Seven (7) firearm accidents, which upon investigation, were attributed to ignorance, negligence, or carelessness.
6. 100% of employees could not name all four Wildlife Services fundamental gun safety rules.
7. Wildlife Services is being faced with the possibility of hiring biologists or field employees with little or no firearm experience.

Based on this independent safety review, I don’t think any reasonable person can take any comfort in the claims that these bait-and-shoot programs are being conducted by “professional sharpshooters”, and even if they were, a “professional sharpshooter” has no control over missed shots, ricochets, or misfires.

A leading deer killing contractor was quoted in a regional newspaper saying, “It’s highly stressful because you always have to assume you’re going to miss.”

The maximum range for a .223 rifle with 55 grain bullets (the typical rifle and ammo used for suburban deer culls) is 2.20 miles.

If killing the deer is not working which it certainly appears to be the case, why not step back and reevaluate the situation before continuing on with an approach that is not working. That along with potential real danger to human residents from the killing methods and a less than humane approach for the deer, calls for stopping right now and taking another look at alternative methods and approaches. Non-lethal approaches are available and its clear that not enough research has gone into working on more practical, real humane methods to population management.of deer and other wildlife

“There is now ample scientific evidence in peer reviewed journals that all mammals experience stress, terror, shock, anxiety, fear, trauma, foreboding, as well as physical pain. Given this knowledge, it is simply illogical not to extend the same basic protection against the deliberate infliction of suffering to animals, which we ourselves enjoy.” – Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, Oxford University

Treatment of white-tailed deer with PZP typically reduces pregnancy rates by 80-90%. PZP can be delivered by hand or remotely, by dart. Using current technology, a single hand-injection of PZP prevents pregnancy for about 2 years. Subsequent boosters may last longer. Suburban deer populations have been stabilized and reduced (20-50%) at three field sites. Typically, population stabilization is rapid, but population reduction is gradual (5-10% per year). Population effects of contraception are site-specific.

Dr. Allen Rutberg
Fertility Control for Wildlife
Department of Biomedical Sciences
Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy
Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine

I’m glad to see this article since I, too, have been bothered by this program since its inception. Killing deer clearly isn’t working in this case (as it does not in so many others for reasons that other commenters have highlighted). I hope that others will realize that there is no scientific justification for this program, and in fact, science supports the opposite reaction–leave nature to its own ways. This is a sham and an embarrassment. The NPS looks like a bunch of anti-science Neanderthals at this point. I will happily sign the petition and share with others!

I was very interested in this article, and would like to see animals not killed over and over again every year. Obviously killing deer is not working, and alternatives are available instead of killing deer. While it may seem counter intuitive, killing deer actually triggers an increase in deer reproduction and population. This phenomena is called compensatory reproduction (rebound) and is a well documented population dynamic in deer and other mammals. When the deer herd density is temporarily reduced through hunting, culling, or trapping, there is reduced competition for food, and the number of twins and triplets born actually increases. Studies have shown that after a hunt surviving females produced enough offspring to not only replace those killed, but enough to actually increase the size of the herd. This phenomenon explains why hunting as a management tool has resulted in an ever-increasing number of deer in this country. … There is no evidence that hunting or culling works over the long-term or is an answer for suburban deer conflicts.”
Killing deer is not a solution to a problem, but a commitment to a permanent problem.

I’m very disturbed that the National Park Service (NPS) has turned one of our historic national parks, the third national park established in the U.S. (1890), which has been a peaceful refuge and sanctuary for both humans and wildlife for over 100 years, and has turned it into a controversial bloody killing field destroying its mission, and threatening the safety of residents who live adjacent to the park. Using our tax money! And the NPS has refused to admit their mistake, which was exposed and opposed by the leading independent experts in the country. And now there is a petition of close to 50,000 supporters demanding that this stop. So who will stop them? Who are they accountable to? Where are our elected officials? Who will make the NPS accountable to the citizens that they work for?

I have found it extremely puzzling for many years that deer hunting has never led to noticeable population reductions. Research made it obvious that states practice game management ensuring the well-being of game for food and sport, which includes killing other animals who share the same niche and/or their predators in order to maintain higher populations of desirable and profitable game species. Wildlife management addresses game and non-game animals, making sure that there are enough species, habitat, proper conservation, etc. The peer-reviewed study by Richter & Labisky found that deer reproduced at a faster rate in hunted herds, resulting in twinning and tripling at a rate of 38% than in non-hunted ones, in which the rate dramatically plummets to a mere 14%. It has become obvious that hunting will never reduce deer populations because game management insures speedier rebound rates.

In an attempt to justify cruelty to deer, officials always talk about the “need” to kill them. They never talk about the fact that there is a birth control alternative. Deer have become modern day scapegoats to the point of being ridiculous. There is nothing more beautiful than seeing a graceful deer in the woods. Let them live in peace already!

According to the International Hunter Education Association, approximately 1,000 people in the US and Canada are accidentally shot by hunters every year, and just under a hundred of those accidents are fatalities.

The only way to stop deer populations from expanding is to STOP HUNTING!
All one needs to do is consider the fact that deer have been systematically killed in large numbers for years and years, and the question should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains – why hasn’t all the hunting resulted in much lower deer numbers? Reading all the excellent comments, I finally understand how they are managed, or rather, mismanaged for the supposed purpose of lowering deer populations! It’s so simple, why doesn’t everyone understand it?

As I read with each article that wants to reduce the deer population for any reason, the deer are being killed year after year only to find that the numbers are increasing. So why? The deer do not change when they cross any state line and yet each state thinks this is the only way to address issues as if killing has ever been the answer.
Excuses are made, but the true is it’s always been about the recreational kill opportunity.
After decades of the same rhetoric, when are towns going to learn that killing the deer Does Not reduce the their population.

Deer populations stay at sustainable levels when there are a sufficient numbers of natural predators to keep the deer in check. Very few deer today live in areas where there are sufficient natural predators, and Rock Creek Park is devoid of such predators (wolves, bears, coyotes). That’s why there has to be hunan intervention of some sort, whether it’s hunting or something else. Deer simply do not live in truly natural environments.

Seriously MS, did you read any of the comments posted above with referenced studies, the article, or the content of the petition?

The deer population in RCP has remained stable for 10 years with no signs of over browsing (no browse line), and there are no starving deer – they are healthy. There was (is) no deer population problem in RCP, and the “reasons” that the NPS gave for the annual slaughter, that the deer need to be killed because they are consuming too many tree seedlings and damaging the ability of the park to renew itself, was totally disputed by Dr. Oswald Schmitz of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, one of the leading independent experts in the United States, and proven untrue by the impact studies that NPS contracted to be done, and was why they didn’t want to share the results of the study.

Of course, predators are helpful in a balanced ecosystem, but the primary variable that cause deer populations to stabilize, as shown at RCP, is the food supply and the environment. Deer populations reach their biological carrying capacity and stabilize based on the food supply and their environment. If that wasn’t the case then the RCP deer population would not have remained stable for 10 years. BTW, I’m sure there are a good number of coyotes thriving in RCP too, which are very effective deer (fawn) predators.